[QUOTE=42fish]
There’s a fair number of words rarely used without a ‘not’ prefix. For example:(snipped)
[/QUOTE]
Like Lord Vetinari instructing William de Worde to keep his printing press “in the realm of the cult, the canny, and the scrutable.” I believe there’s a short story somewhere containing a great number of words usually used in the negative, and it’s quite readable. (Well, by ‘short story’ I mean more like a couple of paragraphs.)
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
I blame the NY Times. This whole problem was caused by its non-use of hyphens. “nvoluptuary” should have been “un-voluptuary.” Now, isn’t that better?
We should bring the the old-fashioned hymen usage to-day.
[/QUOTE]
Dude the NYTimes style is very overhyphenatious. Shake any random page over a white counter and it will look like Richard Nixon just emptied his electric razor on it.
[QUOTE=lissener]
Dude the NYTimes style is very overhyphenatious. Shake any random page over a white counter and it will look like Richard Nixon just emptied his electric razor on it.
[/QUOTE]
I never notice excessive hyphens in the NYT. I see a ton of em dashes (with spaces), which annoy the shit out of me, but not that many hyphens.
[QUOTE=Indistinguishable]
But look at the second definition in your “voluptuous” link. How does that significantly differ from the definition in your “voluptuary” link?
[/QUOTE]
Voluptuous identifies an experience. (Note the cited sentence.)
Voluptuary identifies a person who indulges in activities that one would find voluptuous.
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
I never notice excessive hyphens in the NYT. I see a ton of em dashes (with spaces), which annoy the shit out of me, but not that many hyphens.
[/QUOTE]
AP style is to set off em dashes with spaces. Like it or lump it, buster, it’s still correct.
[QUOTE=Miss Purl McKnittington]
AP style is to set off em dashes with spaces. Like it or lump it, buster, it’s still correct.
[/QUOTE]
The NYT does not use AP style. They can set any rule they want. They should get rid of the spaces. And they should use less em dashes.
Fuck that. The em dash needs to be set off with spaces so people don’t think it’s a hyphen, especially if it appears as one solid line and not two shorter ones.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Voluptuous identifies an experience. (Note the cited sentence.)
Voluptuary identifies a person who indulges in activities that one would find voluptuous.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not actually emotionally attached in any way to this argument, but just as a mundane, trivial point, that’s not my understanding of the matter. Certainly, as a noun, “voluptuary” refers specifically to a person, in the manner you’ve said. But as an adjective, it would appear to function in the same way that “voluptuous” does. (Consider the sentence in the OP).
Or, to make it most clear, look at the definition of the adjective “voluptuary” here.
[QUOTE=Miss Purl McKnittington]
Fuck that. The em dash needs to be set off with spaces so people don’t think it’s a hyphen, especially if it appears as one solid line and not two shorter ones.
[/QUOTE]
I do see how any could confuse an em dash with a hyphen. The Chicago Manual of Style says em dashes should be set closed. The use of spaces is a matter of choice. No one way is correct, but closed looks better to me.
And it has to one solid line. If it is not, it is not an em dash. It would be two hyphens or two en dashes.
This thread makes me want to unkeyboard and get some tea.
A “voluptuary” is like an “ossuary”, a stone box used for the storage of bones. A voluptuary is a stone box used for the bone-storage of persons who would have been described in life as “voluptuous”.
“Unvoluptuary” refers to such a box that was constructed inside-out.
[QUOTE=kaylasdad99]
A “voluptuary” is like an “ossuary”, a stone box used for the storage of bones. A voluptuary is a stone box used for the bone-storage of persons who would have been described in life as “voluptuous”.
[/QUOTE]
Quite. So the Simpsons line
indicates (by level):
[QUOTE=Zoe]
And that brings us to undisinterested and nondisentangled.
Funny Random House piece. He mentioned another word that interests me – unfurl. How seldom we speak of furling the flag.
[/QUOTE]
I was a gruntled Doper – until this.
That article was perfectly cromulent.
Someone had to say it.
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
I never notice excessive hyphens in the NYT. I see a ton of em dashes (with spaces), which annoy the shit out of me, but not that many hyphens.
[/QUOTE]
I email them a couple times a week sometimes to point out extraneous hyphens. My emails are never answered, but the hyphens are usually removed.
[QUOTE=lissener]
I email them a couple times a week sometimes to point out extraneous hyphens. My emails are never answered, but the hyphens are usually removed.
[/QUOTE]
Can you give some examples?
[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
I bet some naturalists are naturists and vice versa. But can you be a denatured naturist? Or an unnatural one? Heh.
[/QUOTE]
How about a naturist with unnatural desires? 
[QUOTE=42fish]
There’s a fair number of words rarely used without a ‘not’ prefix. For example:
(In)advertant
(An)algesic
(In)clement
(Un)conscionable
(Dis)consolate
(In)corrigible
(In)delible
(Non)descript
(In)domitable
(In)effable
(In)evitable
(Un)kempt
(Il)licit
(Im)maculate
(In)nocuous
(Im)peccable
(Im)pervious
(Im)placable
(Un)ruly
(In)sipid
(In)vincible
(Un)wieldly
[/QUOTE]
Canny (j) natural, normal, not worthy of comment
Uncanny (j) remarkable, seemingly unnatural, abnormal.
[QUOTE=42fish]
There’s a fair number of words rarely used without a ‘not’ prefix…
[/QUOTE]
Or suffix: ruth(less)